House Panel to Study Ruling On Law School Admissions

By NEIL A. LEWIS

Published: July 4, 2002

WASHINGTON, July 3—
The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee is investigating whether the chief judge of the federal appeals court in Cincinnati acted improperly in a recent decision upholding the admissions process at the law school at the University of Michigan.

The chairman, Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., Republican of Wisconsin, wrote to the chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Boyce F. Martin Jr., and the Administrative Office of the courts in Washington asking for documents relating to the May 14 decision. The court ruled 5 to 4 that the admissions process, which considers race as a factor, was legal.

Mr. Sensenbrenner wrote that he was concerned that procedures used by Judge Martin to choose which judges decided the case ''may have improperly influenced the outcome of the case.''

Mr. Sensenbrenner said it might have been improper for Judge Martin to have substituted himself for another judge who was unable to participate in the case. He added that it appeared the rules require choosing the substitute judge at random.

It is unusual for a Congressional committee to investigate the procedures behind a decision of the judiciary, a separate branch of government.

Asked whether the Sensenbrenner request raised questions about the separation of powers, Keith Ausbrook, the chief counsel for oversight and investigation for Mr. Sensenbrenner, said the letter to Judge Martin cited the needed authority. The letter refers to House rules providing the committee with jurisdiction over the judiciary and giving it the authority to require the production of documents.

Judge Martin, who sits in Louisville, Ky., did not return a telephone call for comment. Judge Danny J. Boggs, who was in the minority in the ruling, complained about the procedures in his dissent. He declined to comment today.